Driving the other day, it occurred to me that some people spend too much time looking in the rearview mirror instead of where they are going. Of course, this seemed a good analogy for life.
Some people always look ahead and lose touch with their surroundings. On the road we might change lanes in front of others, not know our options in an emergency, or be unaware of our blind spots. In life, we don’t learn from past experiences, we run over others who may get in our “blind spots,” and lose track of and/or forget those who may have had positive influences on our lives.
Those who are always looking in the rearview mirror are fairly easy to spot, both on the road and in life. On the road, they don’t see options right in front of them, they come up on slower moving vehicles and are surprised by it, and they cause accidents by slamming into cars in front of them. In life, they live in the past – telling you all about their glory days but don’t really know what’s happening right now, they seem surprised when anything or anybody gets in their way, and they often crash, “have a crisis,” and either blame others or expect others to come to their rescue.
Then there are those who use wisdom both on the road and in life. On the road they focus on the road ahead, check the rearview mirror periodically so they are aware of their surroundings and emergency options, and they are as aware of where they’ve come from as they are about where they’re going.
In life, these are the people who don’t live in the past but remember lessons learned from past experiences, they travel eagerly into the future always looking for new opportunities, and they pay attention to those who are significant to them. They are also “present,” “in the moment.” Just like their car on the road, they are continually moving forward, anxious to see what’s around the next curve in the road. These drivers, like these people, travel at, or just a tiny bit over, the speed limit, aware of those around them, minimizing problems for those traveling the same highway.
I think it’s easy to get caught up in the rearview mirror if one doesn’t anticipate the future being better than the past. I guess that’s where hope and faith come in; faith being the ability to hope for things that are not seen, yet true.
And it is true that the future is worth traveling into, especially if we choose to believe that it is. Much of our life is determined by how we choose to view it, not by what it appears to be.
The road behind you won’t disappear just because you’ve left it behind. Your past won’t disappear just because you’ve moved on. So leave the road behind you, and your past life, in good condition, having enjoyed the journey – just in case you pass that way again, even if only in memories.

“You want a piece of me?” 

Walking out of a classroom into the hallway I was met by two female residents being escorted down the hallway.  The one looked at me, cocked her head to the side, and said, “What chu looking at?  You want a piece of me?”  I considered her question, shrugged my shoulders and replied, “I don’t know.  You got any good pieces?”  And I waited for her response.

The other girl started giggling and the girl herself began shaking her head.  “You’re crazy!” she answered; smiling.  Then she, the other girl, and their “Tech” continued down the hallway laughing.  (Situation diffused)

Was this quick-witted thinking or a learnable method?  What exactly did I do?  When I went back to my classroom, and because I think lifeskills are as important as any other subject matter, I asked my classroom full of 12-18 yr old incarcerated young men, “What did she mean by “do you want a piece of me?”  Without exception they told me she was calling me out; wanting a fight.  I asked several times if they were sure there could be no other meaning.  They were positive.

Then I asked them, “Do you think I fought with her, argued with her, yelled at her, or even felt threatened by her?”  Smiling, they all answered, “No.”  So, I said, “If I didn’t get called out then would you agree that I must have interpreted her question differently?”  Lights began to turn on inside their minds.  Just minutes before they could see no other possible meaning and now they had to admit that other meanings were not only possible, but in fact, must exist.

Now they had to know the rest of the story.  I shared my response, and they, as the girls in the hallway, couldn’t help but laugh.  Even they asked, “How did you do that?” 

I chose to respond to the actual question instead of reacting to what I thought she might mean, or experiences in my past, or my ego/pride.  In every situation, we have the opportunity to respond or react.  When we react we do the equivalent of kicking our foot forward after our reflexes are tapped.  We each have the power to choose our response in any given situation.

Would you have labeled this teenage girl a “difficult” person?  Was she being “difficult?”  Or was she just being a teenage girl trying to provoke an adult?  (Which, by the way, is the job of children – to test their limits)  How you choose to see her will influence whether or not you respond or react; but that’s another topic for another day.

Respond to the question, thought, situation, or comment – don’t react to perceived meanings, your past, or your ego/pride.  Have power & confidence – no matter what!

Today at school, the “Tech” or staff personal redirected a student to sit quietly.  The Tech then also said to me, “You can dismiss him if you want to,” referring to the student.  The student, I’ll call Pete (not his real name), reacted and began to argue with the Tech and berate him for saying such a thing.  As quickly as possible I got Pete’s attention and had him focus on me.  I asked him, “What exactly did the Tech say?”  Pete repeated what the Tech had said and tried to add his opinion.  I stopped him and asked, “Did he say he would dismiss you?”  Pete tried to equivocate with, “Well, …” so I quickly insisted on a yes or no answer.  Pete answered “no.”  Then I asked Pete if the Tech asked me to dismiss him.  Insisting again on yes or no, Pete again answered “no.”  “So, Pete,” I asked, did you get dismissed?”  Relunctantly Pete replied, “no.”  “What was it the Tech said again,” I asked Pete.  Pete repeated the Tech’s words.  Then I asked Pete if the Tech’s comment was informational or directive.  Pete had to admit that the statement was informational.  I questioned Pete as to why he would get so upset just because the Tech gave me some information.  Pete tried to tell me how the Tech shouldn’t say such a thing.  We then discussed whether the information was truthful and accurate.  Pete agreed it was but kept wanting to make the Tech wrong for saying it.  I finally got Pete to see that it wasn’t WHAT the Tech said, but THE MEANING Pete had attached to his words.  Pete finally got that words are just words until we apply the meanings.  If Pete had heard the Tech’s comment as merely information, he could have refrained from getting angry and nearly getting the very thing he was trying to avoid – getting dismissed from class.

While Pete is still a young man of 15, his behavior is not so different from our own.  How often do we hear something and react to what we interpret it to mean rather than choosing to make the words mean something we can either ignore or respond to in a way that empowers us and leaves us happy?

Take the opportunity today to hear what you choose to hear – you’ll never be insulted again!

To Ellen DeGeneres’, Marina Batkis, owner of the dog adoption agency, became a difficult person.  To Marina, Ellen DeGeneres’ became a difficult person.  So who was the difficult person?  They both were; and they both weren’t.  As you know already, Ellen made a mistake.  She forgot about the contents of her contract with the adoption agency which clearly stated that she could not give the dog, Iggy, to anyone else.  If Iggy didn’t fit in with Ellen’s household, Ellen should return him to the agency.  In retrieving Iggy from the other family, Marina and the agency did nothing wrong.  In fact, they merely upheld the contract. 

Ellen realized her mistake and apologized on her show, admitting that she messed up.  Unfortunately, Ellen then tried to get the adoption agency to absolve her of the guilt she felt for having Iggy taken from the children.  She pleaded and reasoned that the concern should be for the dog, (and possibly the children) not for the rules.  Ellen’s implication was that if Marina and the agency cared about Iggy, they would give him to the family Ellen selected.  Ellen said, “It should be about the dog.” 

What Ellen failed to recognize was that for Marina, it WAS all about the dog.  Why else would the agency have the new pet owners sign those contracts?  It’s clear that Marina and Vanessa Chekroun, owners of the adoption agency, love the dogs they adopt out.  If fact, they love them so much that they, through the contract, maintain some control over the dog’s life even after they are adopted.  Ellen DeGeneres’ saw Marina as cold-hearted, when in fact, she was doing exactly what Ellen wanted her to do:  making it about the dog! 

If Ellen could have set aside her emotions and guilt for a short time she might have seen Marina’s love and concern for Iggy even though that love was exhibited differently than Ellen wanted it exhibited.  Then she might have seen that her concern was as much for the children, who would now be without a dog, as it was for Iggy himself.  When Ellen saw this, the entire situation could have occured differently.  She could have accepted the entire responsibility, apologized to Marina for not seeing that the rules Marina enforces is her way of showing how much she loves the dog, and then apologized to the children for causing their heartache. 

Then Ellen could have made it right for the children by taking them out to find another dog to adopt.  They could have had a wonderful day together as they embarked on the adventure of finding a new friend. 

And Iggy, would soon be in a new home, approved by the agency, being loved and cared for.  Marina would have made sure of it.

If Marina, instead of seeing Ellen as an “unfit owner,” had seen Ellen’s giving Iggy to the children as her way of loving him, Marina might have met with Ellen, had a conversation about Iggy and how the rules apply and maybe agreed to “check out” the new home (or not).  Of course, if Marina did agree to check out the children’s home, Ellen would have to understand that if the home did not meet the agency’s standards, Iggy would have to be returned to the agency.    Marina could even have had Ellen go get the dog and explain it to the children.  Then there would be no “bad guys” and no “victims.”  It would be all about the dog, and integrity.

So who was being difficult?  Each of them became a difficult person to the other when they saw the other person’s actions as getting in the way of what they wanted, intended, or needed to have happen.  In reality, they both wanted the same thing:  Iggy in a home where he would be loved and cared for.  Unfortunately, that got lost in the emotion and the issue became about how that should happen, instead of that it should happen. 

Maybe if now they both realize that they actually, all along, wanted the same thing for Iggy, not only will Iggy soon be happy and move on, but Ellen and Marina will be too.